


^ 



/ 



//t 7?t-A>T. 



79uSu^^. a4^ 




Glass. 



^ 4- :-, r\ 



JA 



■^=^^ 



u m © m 



riM':A(Hi":i) ix thi: 



3 






FIHsr CONCiREGATIONAL ("HrRC.., 



TllV} i 11 15 2) I) B , ^siinr],, 



DAY OF THANKSGIVING, 






I 



^3/i 

^^f 



'^ 



oc 



(5 

I 



BY ABEL ME WEN 

r.v.HToi! OF SAn> cirriuii. 



XEW LONDON: 
DANIELS & BACON. PrBLISHERS. 



R 



,-e<sa^^C?j 



/ A 



@m 



a 



PREACHKIJ IX THI-: 






FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 



Wi^W IL®[i!l[D©[i!l^ ^©IS!}^^ 



DAY OF THANKSGIVING, 



^XFowmber 28, 1850 



BY ABEL M'EWEN^ 

PASTOR OF SAID CHUKCII. 



NEW LONDON: 
DANIELS & BACON, PUBLISHERS. 

MDCCCLI. 






.H\\^ 



" Whether it be right ia the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, j udgo 
ye." Acts iv. 19. 

Tins Scripture has been selected as the theme for a tli,scourse on tliis 
occasion, for the purpose of canvassing the question: How ought the 
people of the Free States in this country to deport themselves in rela- 
tion to that law of the United States, called the " Fugitive Slave 
Law ?" 

Occasion for preaching on this subject is found in exi.-^ting facts. 
The law is producing great and dangerous agitation in the land ; the 
consciences of many people are tried by the demands of the law in 
question, as they understand it ; while the consciences of others are unset- 
tled as to what they ought to do in circumstances into which this law may 
bring them. The danger is great, that not a few, acting by a misguided 
conscience, and that others, acting without heed to conscience, may 
produce national calamities which will beget regret and remorse, which 
■will be as bitter as they will be unavailing. All people will think and 
feel, if they do not speak on this subject. It is one, touching so vitally, 
the interests of this country, so jeoparding the interests of every individ- 
ual, of every family, and of the Church of God; and so pressing itself 
into contact with the conscience and duty of all people, that silence on 
the part of preachers may look more like non-committal than like 
prudence. 

In their relation to this law, some people would regulate their duty 
by looking exclusively at the Constitution of these United States, with- 
out regard to the counsels of divine revelation ; others would give them- 
selves up to abstract dictates of the Bible, refusing to modify these, 
or to restrict the impoi-t of detached portions of Scripture, even by 
principles, by which God himself has qualified and limited his own 
laws, in conibrmity to circumstances in which the subject of these laws 
were involved. This question of duty cannot be candidly settled, with- 
out looking at our whole condition, in which the word and providence 
of God have placed u.^. 

Though it may not be practicable to mark out a course which every 
person in the Free States should tread, providing him guidance on 
every emergency which may betide him ; I shall attempt to do some- 
thing toward this provision. 



1. By an examination of some scriptural counsels, which warrant 
mankind, on some occasions, to disregard the injunctions of civil rulers, 
that they may obey the revealed will of God. 

2. By adverting to other parts of sacred Scripture, in which obedi- 
ence of civil rulers is made obedience of God. 

3. By remarks upon an express prohibition of God, which some 
people in the Free States, conceive interdicts their compliance with 
the "Fugitive Slave Law." 

4. By noticing the obligations which the Constitution of the gov- 
ernment of the United States imposes upon all the citizens of these 
States. 

1. By an examination of some scriptural counsels, which warrant 
mankind, on some occasions, to disregard the injunctions of civil 
rulers. 

A number of texts of Scripture might be cited ; sufficient however, 
it will be to do justice to the occasion, and to the consciences of men, 
to examine candidly, and in their various bearings, two authorities, 
which set before us, men inspired and true to their duty, who disre- 
garded the injunctions of civil rulers that they might obey God. 

The first case is that of the apostles, Peterand John, when they com- 
menced their ministry after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
They had wrought a miracle, healing a cripple, by a word ; they sta- 
ted pubhcly that it was done by the power of God in the name of 
Jesus. Because they preached the gospel, and confirmed it by mira- 
cles, the rulers of the Jews thrust them into prison ; the High Court 
of the nation brought them forth to its bar, and asked them by what 
authority they wrought miracles. Expressly and without disguise, the 
apostles answered, " by the name of Jesus of Nazareth." Among 
themselves, the rulers said that they could not deny that a miracle had 
been wrought ; "but," said they, "that it spread no further among the 
people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no 
man in this name." And they called them and commanded them not 
to speak at all, nor to teach in the name of Jesus. Here is the law. 
It was an injunction from the highest rulers in the nation, forbidding 
the Apostles, and of course, all other men, from preaching the Gospel. 
The reply of the two Apostles follows : " But Peter and John an- 
swered and said unto them, whether it be right in the sight of God to 
hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." This appeal in the 
form of a question to the understanding and conscience of the rulers, 
and of the world, was a declaration of Peter and John, that their deter- 
mination was to disobey the civil edict, and to obey the command of 
the Divine Saviour, in this specific matter of preaching the Gospel ; 



that further than this, they should disregard civil law, they gave not 
the slightest insinuation. " "We cannot," said they, " but speak the things 
which we have seen and heard." Nor did they relieve their conscience 
by empty words. Forthwith, and with perseverance and until death, 
they did preach the Gospel. In the spirit of this disregard of a civil 
edict, all the Apostles and early preachers uniformly disobeyed civil 
rulers in this specific thing, whenever and wherever they, directly or 
indirectly, interdicted the preaching of the Gospel. 

Inconsiderately, and without analyzing their zeal, many people seize 
upon this scriptural authority, as their warrant for disobedience of every 
civil law, which they conceive to be in letter or in principle inconsistent 
in any degree with a divine precept. 

Justice to this investigation demands that some duties suggested by 
this action of the apostles be noticed, and that some mistakes made in 
the use of this example be detected and exposed. 

The command of the rulers was a prohibition of action which had 
been made the main duty of the apostles and Christians, by a recent 
and specific command of Jesus risen from the dead, and about to ascend 
to heaven. This action of the apostles is an example for ministers who 
are commanded to preach the gospel, to preach it though forbidden by 
civil rulers to do this. To regard this, however, as an example which 
warrants men to transgress all civil law which is inconsistent in some 
respect, as they conceive, with divine law, is an abuse of the example. 
All human laws are impei'fect ; the administration of them is imperfect. 
A human law often in some principle, or in the application of it, con- 
flicts with divine law. Subjects of civil law are not on this account to 
rebel and transgress. A tax is by law laid upon the people, but it is 
so made that it operates unrighteously. It lays the burden compara- 
tively upon some, and sj)ares others from it. Divine law incumbent 
upon rulers and people is, " Do justly," " Defraud not." Hundreds per- 
ceive the iniquitous operation of the tax law. Poor widows and 
orphans are oppi-essed by it. Some rich people are exempted from 
its demands. Shall these hundreds take their stand and refuse to pay 
the tax? Shall they advise the oppressed not to pay it, and to arm 
themselves against the collection ? Shall the advisers join the suffer- 
ers with force and arras, raising mobs to resist the collection ? Shall 
senators and orators instruct the people to disobey such law, because 
they conceive it conflicts with divine injunctions to justice, and 
with divine prohibitions of iniquity? Shall all these insurgents take 
words out of the mouth of Peter and say to the rulers of the land, 
"Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more 
than unto God, judge ye ?" And shall they claim that they make a 
legitimate use of this scriptural counsel ? Xo, this specific action of the 



apostles is to be Leeded and plead only as a specilic example ibr doing 
the precise thing which the apostles did. Had the makers of our 
civil constitution, had the congress of the United States conspired to 
enact a law forbidding all the ministers and people of this country to 
preach and hear the gospel at all, doubtless it would be pertinent lor 
us to say to these civil rulers, "Whether it be right in the sight of God 
to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye ;" and doubtless 
the authority of this example would justify us in adopting methods 
for practically exercising the rights of conscience and of private judg- 
ment, in doing God's will to save llie soul. If this example might be 
carried away from its specific application, and be plead to justify insur- 
rection against civil authority and law, in every case in which individ- 
uals and clubs of people think they see, that they or others are called 
to submit to some law, which in some particulars conflicts with divine 
law, against hundreds of laws it may be used to justify insurrection. 
No human government can stand under such an exposition and use 
of this specific text of Scripture- 
Will it be said that every man has a natural right to personal 
liberty ? He has. So has every man a natural right to all the prop- 
erty he can got. I5ut men have found the necessity of restricting all ' 
from getting and keeping property in many ways, in which, but for 
law, they might. So, also, men have found the necessity of restricting 
men in the exercise of their natural liberty to do many things, which, 
but for law, they might do; and might, but ior law, obey their con- 
science and tlie dictates of kind aifection, in doing. Were it not for 
law, I might go into my neighbor's bouse when he forbids me, to teach 
his children the Gospel, when he is teaching tht^m infidelity and the 
arts of seduction and villainy. The law which proliibits me, is said, 
perhaps, to be o^jpressive upon me, a kind man, or upon my neighbor's 
fiunily, made u[) as it is, of moral and immortal beings. Much law 
must, adventitiously, must in many of its operations be oppressive, ibr 
the sake of the general benefit of law, as in this instance. I must sub- 
mit to this restriction from my neighboi''s house, tliat I and all my 
countrymen may, by lavv', be protected in closing our doors against a 
thousand ruinous intrusions. The law which makes a man a slave is 
a very oppressive law; of course, the law which restores a fugitive 
iiom slavery, is a very oppressive law. Any law which introduces 
slavery into the world, into a nation, into any community, is an 
unscriptural law. But when the evil of slavery exists, some laws 
regulating it, are not unscriptural; for God himself has made such 
laws. The laws of divine enactment which regulated slavery in the 
Hebrew commonwealth, were very oppressive upon some men. T\\o 
evil of slaveiy existed; it had originated, not by divine hnv or anihoriiv, 



\ 



hut from llic corrupt passions of men ; and God regulated it. The 
people of Israel would not have been justified in rebelling against the 
laws of that country, touching slavery, because they were oppx'essive. 
Those laws were, for the benefit of the community, necessarily oppres- 
sive. jMoreover, those necessary slave laws emanated from the source 
of all Hebrew law. This was enough to impose the duty of submis- 
sion, while these were laws. 

Any law which should have introduced polygamy into the world, 
would have been a law, emanating not from the will or enactment of 
God. God found polygamy in Israel, which the vile hearts of men 
had originated. And Moses, or rather God by Moses, enacted a law 
suffering men to repudiate wives not guilty of adultery, and to take 
others. This law was oppressive upon the repudiated and ujion their 
friends. But the sore evil of polygamy existed, making the hearts of 
husbands hard and cruel toward wives who were not objects of affec- 
tion ; and God, by a law unavoidably oppressive, regulated the evil until 
the coming of Christ. Had men or women in Israel rebelled against 
this law because it was oppressive, their conduct would have been 
wickedness, and they would have been punished by divine authority. 
They might have plead for their justification in this rebellion an 
abstract principle, right in itself; nevertheless in their present circum- 
stances, they would have been guilty of rebellion against divine author- 
ity. Though our fugitive slave law is, of necessity, oppressive, we 
cannot rebel against it, and say for our justification, it is right in the 
sight of God to hearken unto Him, more than unto our rulers who 
made this law. If we concede that it is such a law as they ought not 
to have made, still it is a law, made by us, by our representatives, in 
whose hand God has placed the authority of legislation ; and it is not 
God's revealed will that we use the example of Peter and John to 
justify ourselves in disregarding any law, emanating from this legisla- 
tive authority, except law, thence coming, which interdicts us from 
the specific action, from which the apostles were interdicted by the 
Sanhedrim. 

We speak of the example of Peter and John, as furnishing a war- 
rant for preachers of the Gospel, to preach it, though forbidden by 
rulers, in this specific action. Though the apostles conceived it to be 
their duty, in this isolated and great work, to obey the command of 
Jesus, though civil rulers imposed silence upon them; still, even this 
action — so important to this lost world, so perem2:)torily commanded, 
and forbidden so manifestly by human malice against Christ and his 
salvation — the apostles modified, and were conscious of liberty and 
obligation thus to act. If forbidden to preach the Gospel in one city, 
they fled to another; simply bearing their testimony against those who 



interdicted and rejected the divine message. Their ministry was thus 
modified in accordance with circumstances, because their commission 
was modified to meet such embarrassments. The servant of Christ 
was not to strive. The command of the Sanhedrim was, " Speak not, 
nor teach at all in the name of Jesus." This command, putting the 
Gospel out of the world, was not to be obeyed. If tlie apostles were 
forbidden to preach in the synagogue or temple, they retired to a place 
more humble, and less obnoxious to the indignation of the civil magis- 
trates, and of the people, actuated by unhallowed prejudice and zeal. 
They made no noisy and showy demonstrations of their conscientious- 
ness and rights — no fiery and vindictive denunciation did they utter 
against opposers ; but in meekness they exhibited truth against error. 

Much less did the apostles, to sustain a cause which they were not 
at liberty to relinquish, or action which they were forbidden to suspend, 
arm themselves, or advise others, by force to withstand those who they 
knew were conscious of setting themselves, with selfishness and hostil- 
ity, against God himself, and his commands. Christ had taught his 
followers, and all men, that "They who take the sword, shall perish 
by the sword;" that subjects of civil law — interdicted even from this 
specific action, preaching the Gospel, which it was right for them to 
perform — might not, neither they nor their adherents, as insurgents, 
arm themselves to resist. What a stretch of civil disobedience, then, 
it is, for those who lament and abhor slavery, and who feel a compas- 
sion for fugitives from it, to plead the example of Peter and John to 
justify armed resistance of civil law, in a department of rebellion to 
which the Scriptures do not assign that example for authority or gui- 
dance. Declaimers and journalists in the free States vehemently 
urge people, not themselves oppressed by law, to form armed combina- 
tions — for what? To resist officers of the law in the administration 
of existing law. And they advise those whom they regard as sorely 
oppressed by the law, by arms to resist the officers of the law, even 
to the taking of their lives. Had the early Christians taken the life 
of a magistrate who imprisoned Peter and John, and who bound and 
scourged Paul, and slew James and Stephen — the record of this 
armed resistance, and of this perpetration of murder, would have 
stamped the Gospel and practical Christianity with the spirit of crime, 
and the world would have shrunk from it, as from a religion horrid 
with blood. 

Some of these intemperate counselors have, manifestly, some mis- 
givings as to the wholesomeness of their advice ; and they have said 
that they would suffer, to any extent, under oppressive law, but that 
they would not, by such law, be coerced to perform acts of wickedness. 
Will they abide by their principle? The counsel w^hich they adopt 



for the guidance of their own action, will they extend as advice to 
others? Without sacrifice or danger, these men of noise may engage 
to suffer all the evils which the fugitive slave law has in store for 
them, which are just none at all. But will they advise the fugitives 
to submit to all the suffering which oppressive law brings to them? 
In giving counsel to them, these advisers lose sight of their principle 
of avowed subordination to civil law, to the extent it shall deal out 
suffering; and, instead of counseling these poor victims of oppression 
not to be coerced, by law, into acts of wickedness, they advise them to 
defend themselves from suffering, even to the extent of assault and 
battery, and even of murder, perpetrated upon the officers of the law. 

The other scriptural counsel to which I propose to advert, is, that 
of Daniel, who disobeyed the decree of king Darius, which was, that 
any man who should, for thirty days, ask any petition of any god or 
man, save of Darius himself, should be cast into the den of lions. 
Daniel, in disregard of the prohibition, continued to pray, openly, to 
the God of heaven. The record approves his conduct. His example 
is good authority for the disregard of civil law, in this specific case. 
Were the Congress of these States to issue such a decree, it would, 
on the authority of the example of Daniel, be the duty of the people 
of this nation to continue their prayers to God. 

But to carry the authority of this example away from the specific 
action concerning which it counsels us, and to plead it in justification 
of rebellion against any law which is thought to be oppressive, or incon- 
sistent with some precept or principle of revealed religion — is 
impertinent. 

Daniel meditated no violence — practiced no violence — recom- 
mended none — would have discouraged all violence, in defence of Im 
privilege of prayer. He prayed, in disregard of civil laws, and he 
expected to submit; and he did submit to the powers of government, 
which cast him into the den of lions. Shall fugitives from slavery, 
take counsel from his disregard of civil law ? They, in slavery, 
thought the law, subjecting them to bondage, was oppressive ; and, to 
get their rights, fled. Their conduct, in this particular, resembles that 
of Daniel — peaceably taking their rights. Pursued by the law, which 
follows them to cari-y them back, not to the lion's den, but to dens 
sufficiently terrific and cruel, we admit ; will they go, like him, with- 
out resistance to existing law? 

One vieWj which may be taken of these two instances of disregard 
of civil law, nullifies them effectually, as divine authority, which men 
may plead to justify themselves in violation of existing laws which 
perpetuate slavery. Persia, like all the Eastern nations in the days 
of Daniel, had in it, slavery. He and all the children of the captivity 



10 

were slaves. No doubt, he thought slavery was oppression and cru- 
elty, on the part oF the government and masters. He was a most 
favored slave ; still, we know that he sighed for his liberty, for the 
liberty of his fellow slaves, and for their restoration to their father-land. 
He was a most influential slave, and v/as therefore, nnder uncommon 
obligations to do what it was right and proper to do, for the emanciint- 
tion of himself, and of those in bonds with him. They had been car- 
ried into bondage, not from a Pagan land into a land of revealed reli- 
gion, but the reverse of this. Daniel however, did not take the princi- 
ple, on which he disregarded the edict, respecting prayer, and justify 
himself, or others, in raising an insurrection against the slave laws of 
Persia. If he used not his own example, his own principles ibr such a 
purpose, under all his personal temptations, and all the solicitations of 
his kindred and countryman, who can make such a use of it, without 
perverting it from its legitimate application? Doubtless Daniel would 
have been himself highly gratified, and would have done, in his own 
estimation, a favor to Persia, and an unspeakable one to the slaves of 
that country, could he, by a legal operation, have abolished all slavery 
there, and all slave laws. To have attejnpted this, however, by insur- 
rection, Avould have been an adventure, too wicked, and too costly, as it 
would have been a general sacrifice of the slaves, and a subjection of 
the whole population to the violence, misery, and despair of anarchy. 

Let us take a similar view of the other authority, which is plead for 
the justification of rebellion against civil authority, in the disregard of 
many human laws, and especially of the slave laws, and more especially 
of the fugitive slave law of this country. The apostles, forbidden to 
preach the gospel at all, said to the rulers, "whether it be right in 
the sight of God, to hearken unto yon, more than unto God, judge ye." 
Slavery was at this time prevalent among the Jews, regulated by the 
Levitical code, and prevalent in other parts of the Roman Empire, 
regulated by the laws of Rome. The apostles, espousing the righteoua 
and merciful principles and precepts of the gospel, could not have 
owned slaves. They regarded slavery, doubtless, a great oppression, 
and a great sin, and they would have advocated the legal extermina- 
tion of slavery. 

As they had found it to be their duty to preach the gospel, though 
forbidden by civil authority, why did they not carry out the principle 
adopted for action in this isolated case, and undertake, as some modern 
reformers do, to rid their country of all sin, sanctioned by human law, 
by preaching and practising insurrection against all oppressive and cor- 
rupt laws. By Roman law, the power even, of taking the life of a 
slave belonged to his master. The apostles, however, uttered not a 
note, moved not a finger to encourage insurrection, even against a law 



11 

so grievous. Hear Paul's advice to a slave. "Art thou called, (i. e. 
to be a Christian,) being a servant? care not for it, but if thou mayest 
be made free, use it rather ; for he that is called in the Lord, being a 
servant is the Lord's freeman." 

Facts speak louder than theories. Men may now take the action 
of Peter and John, preaching the gospel, when interdicted by rulers, 
and on the authority of this action construct a theory, which shall 
encourage insurrection against every existing law, which is conceived 
to contravene some precept, or principle of revealed religion ; but the 
])ractical comment of the apostles shows, that they did not carry out 
this principle to justify insurrection, even against the unchristian laws, 
which were conservative of slavery. Senators in their places, anima- 
ted by a zeal for liberty, or something else, may sound the note of 
rebellion against the Constitution, which they have made oath to sup- 
port, and against laws, made by the legislature, of which they are a 
})art, proclaiming to the ignorant, the fanatical, and the insubordinate, 
that the law of God is higher than human laws; but would these dig- 
nitaries examine the Scriptures, from which, as they pass they take a 
maxim, they would see, that they build at least one of their political 
theories on other foundation than that of Christ and the apostles. 

2. Some light may be gained to regulate our conduct in relation to 
the fugitive slave law, by adverting to parts of sacred Scripture in 
which obedience to civil rulers is made obedience of God. 

Not to be tedious, I will confine my quotation lo one bi'oad and per- 
tinent injunction given by Paul in his epistle to the Romans, xiii. 1 — 5. 
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no 
power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained ,of God ; AVho- 
ever resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God : and they 
that resist receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a 
terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid 
of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of 
the same ; for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou 
do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he beareth not the sword in vain ; 
for he is the minister of God ; a revenger to execute wrath upon hira 
that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for 
wrath, but for conscience sake." 

This injunction to obey magistrates is general, referring to all 
people in a nation ; and to all laws under which they live ; and provi- 
ding within itself no dispensation from obedience of any existing law, 
under which a citizen, an inhabitant, or a foreigner is placed. Nothing 
can be plead as a dispensation from obedience to existing law, incul- 
cated by this injunction, except what is found in express exceptions, 
made and particularized by authority tantamount to this general and 



12 

unqualified statute, which prescribes the subordination of (.'verj soul to 
law. Throughout the New Testament I know of liberty in but one 
case given or claimed, by divine authority, for transgressing civil law. 
That was liberty to preach the gospel, as claimed by Peter and John, 
though interdicted by civil rulers. Speaking and teaching in the name 
of Jesus implied, doubtless, reading the Bible, worship regulated by 
the gospel, and the inculcation of gospel truth by writing. With this 
single exception, the unqualified injunction of God, by Paul, enforcing 
as a matter of conscience, and as a religious duty, or, as obedience of 
God himself, practical subjection of evei'y soul to every existing law, 
under which, in the providence of God, he is placed, stands unrepealed 
and unqualified. A man may think a law of the country is unwise, 
oppressive, inconsistent with divine law. No matter. It is the decree, 
the mandate of the powers that be. Wrath from civil authority will 
come upon him, if he disobey, and not only to avoid that, but for con- 
science sake, a regard for God, whose ordinance, the powers that be, 
is, he must obey every law. Nero's laws were bad, cruel ; the laws of 
the Sanhedrim were bad. Paul knew it ; God knew it ; and he knew 
that many future laws would be bad. Nevertheless, he gave the broad 
injunction upon all men to be subject to all law, and this injunction God 
has never repealed. Some people affect tenderness of conscience for 
obeying divine law in preference to human law. A tender conscience 
will not be perverse ; it Avill cherish tenderness for this law of God, 
given by Paul, precisely as God has qualified it, and precisely as he 
has maintained it, and left it in force. 

3d. Remarks are to be made upon an express prohibition of God, 
which some people, in the free States, conceive interdicts their com- 
jdiance with the fugitive slave law. 

The prohibition, to which ^illusion is now made, is found in the 
Levitical statutes, Deut. xxiii, 15, 16: "Thou shalt not deliver, unto 
his master, the servant which is escaped from his master, unto thee. 
He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall 
choose, in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best; thou shalt not 
oppress him." 

The question before us is : does this prohibition constitute a dispen- 
sation, to the people of the Free States, from the general injunction 
upon them, to obey all existing laws, under which they live, particu- 
larly a dispensation from a practical compliance with the demands of 
the fugitive slave law ? 

This law, recorded in Deut. manifestly was a municipal law of the 
Jews. How far it is binding upon us, how far it excuses us, in with- 
holding ourselves from the execution of our fugitive slave law, depends 
not a little, on what it was. in its application to the duties required by 



13 

it of the people of Israel. They had slaves, some who were of their own 
blood, Jews ; others whom they purchased of the heathen living around 
them, or in the midst of them. The language of the statute indicates 
that it did not regulate the conduct of the Jews, in relation to their own 
slaves. Occasionally some of these escaped from their masters. To 
whom did they flee ? The language of the statute is, " The servant 
who is escaped from his master unto Uiee." Who is designated by the 
word thee ? The law was addressed to the commonwealth, not to a 
particular individual. A slave in Israel who had escaped from his 
master did not flee from him to that nation, he was before he absconded 
already in that land, under that government. The additional provis- 
ions of the statute show satisfactorily that the word tliee designates 
the nation, and not an individual. "He (the servant) shall dwell with 
thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of 
thy gates." Was any person, any family obliged to keep a slave who 
had fled to him, whatever he was, however he might conduct, and 
whatever might be the circumstances of the person to whom he fled, 
as to age, sex, health, sickness, or poverty ? Must this individual upon 
whom the fugitive quartered himself, keep him in such of his gates, 
that is, in such of his houses, rooms, yards, or fields, as the fugitive 
should choose? Something must have been meant by gates, different 
from any such thing, pertaining to an individual. " He shall dwell with 
thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of 
thy gates." Among whom ? In the family ; in the room which he should 
select ? This could not have been enjoined. The word thee, designated 
the nation ; the word gates designated the cities or towns of the land, in 
one of which the fugitives might choose to dwell. The word among 
directs that the fugitives should be permitted to dwell among the nation, 
not among the family of a particular individual. The nation, undeniably, 
was addressed by the words of the statute. The word thee meant the state. 
If a servant had escaped from his master to the commonwealth of Israel, 
he had come from a pagan nation, where the master had the disposal of 
the slave's life, and kept him in idolatry. Such a fugitive from such a 
foreign nation, come to the land of Israel, might dwell in some one of its 
cities, or towns, he should not be delivered up. Mark another pro- 
vision of this statute concerning the treatment of the fugititive: "Thou 
Shalt not oppress him;" that is, enslave him nor make his residence in 
Israel, onerous. The Jews might buy slaves of the heathen, but they 
might not enslave a fugitive from heathen bondage. Provision was 
made, by law, for the holding of slaves in Israel, whether the slaves 
were Jews or heathen, and also for the emancipation of slaves. It 
could not be, that in this statute, concerning fugitives, provision was 
made, for all slaves in Israel, to emancipate themselves by escaping 



14 

and ensconcing themselves in a neighboring family, or in any family 
in Israel. 

If, then, it be settled that this statute forbade the delivery only of 
fugitive slaves from masters of foreign, heathen countries, what bearing 
has it upon our duty in relation to slaves who escape to us from masters 
in our own land? We have made a constitutional compact with 
masters who are our own countrymen, not to obstruct the recovery of 
persons, who by law, owe them service. It is to be lamented, that 
when the Constitution of the United States was made, there was any 
necessity for making such a compact. It was made. The fugitive 
slave law is based upon that compact. The statute in Deuteronomy, 
tliough it forbids us to make a covenant with foreign, pagan masters 
to restore a fugitive slave to them, and forbids us to restore them, 
does not touch our responsibilities towards masters who are our coun- 
trj'men; and who, though living in the great national sin of slavery, 
are a part of our own Christian community. It may be that our 
fugitive slave law is an unwise and oppressive law. It is, in substance, 
the same law as that, which in 1793, was made for the benefit both of 
the North and the South. It may be that this law, now in force 
ought to have more intelligibly given to those apprehended under it, 
what the Attorney General of the United States says it has given, the 
right of habeas corpus : it may be, that this law ought to have given to 
the apprehended, trial by jury in the State where they are arrested . 
it might have prevented clamor, had the law explained that the fee of 
the judge was doubled, on the condition of his decision that the person 
tried before him was a slave, because such a decision subjected himself 
to double labor in the preparation of subsequent papers. Possibly tiie 
law amerces too heavily marshals and citizens who may be concerned 
in the apprehension of fugitives, for delinquencies, or for some 
interference prompted by humanity: nevertheless, the law is a law of 
the land, made by our representatives ; therefore made mediately by 
ourselves. There is no dispensation from obedience of it to be got for 
us, from the statutes in Deuteronomy ; nor from any thing else. If we 
would get rid of it, or of something objectionable in it, at the proper 
time we must get it repealed or amended by a legal legislative pro- 
cess. He who prevents the execution of the law, while it is in force, 
or by withholding himself from a service which the law may demand 
of him, exposes his country, himself, and the fugitives too, to all the 
miseries of anarchy. We may show great kindness to fugitives 
from slavery. But by urging them to rebellion against existing law? 
or by indulging ourselves in such rebellion, Ave expose them to 
destruction. From government or from anarchy it must come. God 
saith to rebels, '* Wilt thou not be afraid of the power ?" " he is the 



15 

minister of God : a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth 
evil." 

4. Notice is to be taken of the obligations which the constitution of 
the United States imposes upon all the citizens of these States. 

The section of the Constitution which pertains to the restoration of 
fugitive slaves is as follows: "No person held to service or labor in 
one State, under the laws thereof, and escaping into another, shall, in 
consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such 
service or labor ; but he shall be delivered up on claim of the party to 
wliora such service or labor is due." 

It ma}'' be said that no such Constitution ought to have been made. 
The reply is, the evil of slavery then existed in all the States, as it 
existed in Israel, when God made for that nation its laws for slavery. 
Without this Constitution, the government of these States could not 
have been established. As God saw that slavery could not then be 
abolished in Israel, aial therefore regulated it ; so, the fathers of our 
nation thought slavery could not then be abolished here; they conse- 
quently made a Constitution to regulate it. A law has been made, 
and it ought to have been made, to carry out this provision of the 
Constitution ; a law officially pronounced by the Attorney General ot 
the United States to be constitutional. If the existing law be not 
constitutional, the Court of the United States legally appealed to will 
so decide ; and the legislature, and the people by it, may revise, correct 
and perfect the law. If the Constitution be too wicked and cruel to be 
endured, the nation has powers reserved to it in the Constitution, to 
amend and perfect that. The present generation, by their oaths, have 
adopted the Constitution and laws of the United States, and engaged 
to support them as they are or as they shall be, when constitutionally 
and legally amended. The people cannot annul a single law by rebel- 
lion ; nor venture upon a rebellious act toward such nullification, with- 
out violating their consciences and exposing themselves to all the 
horrors and miseries of anarchy. If the North in this way undertake 
to nullify this obnoxious law, the South may retaliate ; and by the 
same means destroy any other law. Refractory people all over the 
land, following the inconsiderate and wicked example, will be embold- 
ened by insubordination to abrogate all law. 

It is unnecessary and irrational for any person in this country, 
because he abhors the fugitive slave law, to turn his thoughts toward 
revolution as a remedy. Occasion may exist in a nation for a revolu^ 
tion. When a foreign power holds dominion over a nation, and by 
law or orders in council oppresses it, transporting, it may be, its citizens 
out of their country for trial — or, when a domestic tyrant or a tyran- 
nical oligarchy have repudiated written Constitutions, monopolized 



16 

governmental power, appropriated all public revenues to the gratifica- 
tion of their own lusts, and oppressed the people by burdens and irri- 
tating privations, cutting them off not only from all participation in 
the government but from all redress by law — then, revolution, if it 
be feasible and if it promise success and relief, is justified. 

But if the people of a country be, as we have already noticed, under 
divine injunction to be subject to the powers that be, how in circum- 
stances of wrong, and peril, and sufiering, can a nation justify itself in 
revolution ? The reply is, the command of God that men be in subjec- 
tion to the civil government existing over them, applies to them as 
separate citizens, acting not nationally, but on their private I'esponsi- 
bility. When the nation, impelled by intolerable o[)pression, rises in 
mass, and nationally disowns its government, that government ceases 
to be the civil power, which, by the ordinance of God, existed to rule 
and protect that nation. God ordains and sanctifies every government 
which gets and maintains a being by, and only by, a nation's will. 
The subordination which God, by Paul inculcated, was subjection on 
the part of citizens and inhabitants — every soul — to the government 
which the nation retained. A nation is not, by this edict of heaven, 
bound to retain, obey and honor a government which perpetrates 
extensive robbery and murder, or even crimes of less magnitude. 
When the government of a nation has become a monster of iniquity 
and cruelty, that nation is bound, if it can, to succor its suffering people, 
by throwing off the galling tyranny. Cast into abandonment and impo- 
tency by the nation's solemn verdict, the oppressor is seen by the 
people ; but it is no longer among the powers that be. Thus revolu- 
tion may find justification. 

But, for a people who hold the government of their country in their 
own hands, and who are at liberty to amend, and change, and per- 
fect its constitution and laws through their own representatives, to 
seek revolution, is idiocy or madness. It is a revolt from themselves. 

"Wo to thee. land, when thy king is a child, and thy princes eat 
in the morning !" Wo, an hundred fold to thee, nation, when thou 
art thyself a child ! Renounce, annihilate all existing government ! 
this is easy. But to establish a government, to frame one for a people 
of diverse and conflicting interests, to agree upon one and adopt it ; 
for a nation, in the process of all this work, to save itself from the 
ruthless grasp of some military chieftain, or to save itself in the end 
from the desolation of anarchy — this is labor. Let senators and 
ministers of the Gospel, journalists and declaimers, conventions and 
all citizens understand, that if by force they resist the execution of the 
fugitive slave law, or produce such resistance, they wage war against 
the United States, and are guilty of treason! 



